District's share for school goes up

By GEORGE AUSTIN

Comment

southcoasttoday.com

Writer

Posted Nov. 21, 2012 at 12:01 AM

Posted Nov. 21, 2012 at 12:01 AM

» Social News

By GEORGE AUSTIN

Editor

SOMERSET — The Somerset Berkley Regional School District's share of the new high school building project has gone up by $575,607, but Building Committee Chairman Richard Fenstermaker said last week that most of that increase can be offset by his committee's decision not to install a photovoltaic system on the building.

The reason for the increase in the cost of the project for the district had to do with site costs that were higher than was budgeted. The Massachusetts School Building Authority will reimburse the district about 66 percent for an amount of the site costs that equal up to eight percent of the estimated cost of the project. But the price for the site costs has gone above eight percent. Project manager Daniel Tavares, of Skanska USA Building, said the site costs are about $1 million higher than had been estimated. The photovoltaic system would have cost an estimated $500,000.

The actual construction bid for the building project that was estimated at $82.8 million came in about $500,000 below the estimate.

Some of the increases in the site cost had to do with unsuitable soils that were removed and then replaced with proper fill for supporting a building. The building committee had budgeted to pay for up to 1,000 cubic yards of unsuitable soil, but 5,500 cubic yards of unsuitable materials were found. Mr. Tavares said it cost $650,000 to bring the fill in for the project.

Architect Troy Randall said he felt bringing in new soil to support the school should be looked at as a building cost that should be reimbursed by the state, but said MSBA considered it a site cost. Building Committee member Richard Peirce said if Norwood got reimbursed for a similar cost during its recent building project, than the Somerset Berkley Regional School District also should. If Norwood did not get reimbursed for that work, he said he could live with MSBA not giving the funding to the regional school district. But Mr. Randall said the projects are delineated differently. He said every aspect of model school buildings, which the local one is, is not the same. Mr. Peirce said every building has excavation under it and thought there should be a straight forward answer to the question of whether the state will reimburse for it. Mr. Randall said MSBA will say that it has not reimbursed for such work in the past. He said MSBA only reimburses for eight percent of the site work in order to make the funding it distributes as equitable for the different school districts.

Building Committee member Jamison Souza asked why the site costs were so skewed. Mr. Tavares said contractors don't always bid on projects exactly as they are assesssd.

Mr. Tavares said there was a shift in $500,000 spent on the project that the MSBA originally considered site costs, but now considers building costs and so will reimburse for it.

There was also some debate last week over some six additional plates that had to be added to the building for structural supports. Mr. Tavares said the plates had to be fabricated and installed at a cost of $2,517, which he said was minimal, but Building Committee member Robert Anctil said the school district should not have to pay for them because they were not part of the architect's plans. He said the money for the plates may be small, but such small costs can add up.

Mr. Tavares said there is no such thing as a perfect set of documents for constructing such a school. He said unexpected costs, like the plates, will continue to come up during the building process and that is why there is a contingency budget built into the cost for the high school. The budget for the building has a $2.25 million contingency amount. Mr. Randall said that that since the beginning of the process, he has said there will be changes in the construction documents.

Mr. Anctil said he is a contractor and that in the industry if something like the plates is missed, the contractor loses.

Mr. Peirce said the building's plans are based on a design used for other schools and asked if the other buildings needed the plates.

Building Committee member John Gallagher said he did not think the committee can accuse the architect of not doing due diligence. He said the building is not exactly the same as other schools the firm has built and said there has not been a lot of change orders so far in the construction process.

Mr. Anctil questioned a cost for an office trailer in the contractor's budget that had a price of over $300,000. He asked if the trailer was "dipped in gold" and said such expenses end up on the front page and make the Building Committee members look "like bananas." He said after the meeting that the trailer was part of the budget in the bid the contractor made that was a half million dollars under what the school district estimated the cost of the building to be.

Mr. Fenstermaker said the construction process is past the point when there was the potential for the most surprises with the site work. He does not expect as many unexpected costs for the actual building.